SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Thanksgiving weekend, traditionally one of the busiest travel times in America, can also be one of the deadliest on the roadways. To help motorists avoid tragedies, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) will have all available officers on patrol during a Maximum Enforcement Period (MEP).

The MEP begins at 6:01 p.m. on Wednesday, November 22, and continues through 11:59 p.m. on Sunday, November 26. During the MEP, CHP officers will educate motorists and enforce traffic safety laws throughout the state to ensure everyone has a safe holiday.

Not wearing a seat belt can be a fatal decision in a collision. According to the CHP’s 2016 Thanksgiving MEP data, among the 27 people killed in collisions within CHP jurisdiction, 14 were not wearing a seat belt. Research shows that wearing a seat belt is one of the simplest things people can do to stay safe when traveling in a vehicle.

“Whether you are driving across the street or across the country for your Thanksgiving gathering, it is imperative to wear your seat belt,” CHP Acting Commissioner Warren Stanley said. “Wearing a seat belt is essential every day of the year, but we do not want to have festivities ruined as a result of people not buckling up for their trip.”

The CHP is also partnering with seven other state law enforcement agencies across the nation for the Thanksgiving weekend for the “Interstate 40 Challenge.” The annual campaign focuses on the 2,500-mile stretch of interstate that runs from North Carolina through Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico and Arizona, ending in Barstow, Calif. The CHP will be educating and enforcing traffic safety laws during this challenge. During past challenges, California has not seen a single fatality on I-40

The mission of the California Highway Patrol is to provide the highest levels of Safety, Service, and Security.

44 comments

Funny thing about seatbelts is that they can also kill you. Yet only 14 traffic deaths where seat belts werent worn in one of the largest most populated states sure seems like it requires all this over time and enforcement. As adults we should be allowed to decide what risks we are willing to take. Seatbelt laws force us to accept one risk for releiving another. I can understand minor childern veing required to wear them as they are minors and some parnets do not have their childrens safety in mind. But for the goverment to treat us as children and enforceing their rules with armed men on patrol seems a bit excessive for a seatbelt or much of anything they were talking about in this press release.

They can do and have caused massive internal injury that results in death, also certain impacts result in drive train compponets being forced into driver area where if unrestrained the driver would be forced out of the way instead of earing hot engine. Also steering components have been driven through drivers impaling them and causing deaths.

Only if you, as an adult, also take full responsibility for the consequences, including not accepting any government assistance with your healthcare, disability payments, etc. If you are assisted by my tax dollars, then you have an obligation to keep your assistance needs to a minimum. That means conforming to the statistical “best bet.”

“There are 5 different criticisms of anarchism:
1. The Marxist Criticism of Anarchism
The Marxists oppose Anarchism because the basic premises of Anarchism undermine those of Marxism. They argue over how someone can throw away the entire political structure, and if one should dispense of such an extremely useful weapon. Their most common arguments are like, “How can workers run a factory without direction and guidance i.e. without authority?”

2. The Social-Democratic Critique of Anarchism
Socialism basically is the complete, polar opposite of Anarchism. It calls for an all-powerful state that dictates the way men should live, behave and ultimately, die. In Socialism, the State has ultimate control of everything.
They argue that the State is essentially the arbiter of all legality and the present economic order is the only established legal order. A Stateless society — or even its advocacy — is thus regarded as criminal in itself!

3. The Liberal-Democratic Objection to Anarchism
Liberal-Democracy, or non-fascist conservatism, is afraid to make direct criticisms of Anarchism because to do so undermines the whole reasoning of Liberal-Democracy. It therefore resorts to falsification: Anarchists are equated with Marxists (and thereby the whole Marxist criticism of anarchism ignored). The most frequent target of attack is to suggest that Anarchism is some form of Marxism plus violence, or some extreme form of Marxism.

4. The Fascist Objection to Anarchism
Anarchism is the ideal form of society, so ideal that it is either impossible to achieve or possible only in the distant future.

5. The Average Person’s Objection to Anarchism
The average person’s objection to Anarchism is mostly influenced by the Press. This was born out in many exposures in Black Flag showing where avowed Marxists were in the turbulent Sixties described in the press as “Anarchists” while avowed Anarchists were described as “Marxists” or “nationalists”.
The average person equates Anarchism with protests and general disorder.
While the average person, if made to understand the benefits of Anarchism, gladly accepts them, he is just too lazy or too scared to go out there and protest against the state. He will be more than happy if someone else (and not him, he loves his normal, comfortable lifestyle) picks up the mantle and leads the fight for Anarchism and wins.

And finally, the attack on Anarchism by Ayn Rand in her article- “The Nature of Government”.
A recent variant of anarchistic theory, which is befuddling some of the younger advocates of freedom, is a weird absurdity called “competing governments.” Accepting the basic premise of the modern statists — who see no difference between the functions of government and the functions of industry, between force and production, and who advocate government ownership of business — the proponents of “competing governments” take the other side of the same coin and declare that since competition is so beneficial to business it should also be applied to government. Instead of a single, monopolistic government, they declare, there should be a number of governments in the same geographical area, competing for the allegiance of individual citizens, with every citizen free to “shop” and to patronize whatever government he chooses.
Remember that forcible restraint of men is the only service a government has to offer. Ask yourself what a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean.
One cannot call this theory a contradiction in terms, since it is obviously devoid of any understanding of the terms “competition” and “government.” Nor can one call it a floating abstraction, since it is devoid of any contact with or reference to reality and cannot be concretized at all, not even roughly or approximately. One illustration will be sufficient: suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones’ house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith’s complaint and do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there.”

Well. Setting aside the aspect that accidents involving major injuries end of costing tax payers, I am curious about your position, should you be driving with children. Would you chose to have them belted up? Allow them to make their own decisions? Or tell them not to use their belts?

If you read my posts and comments i stated that i can agree with requiring minors be belted as they are not responsible for their actions. However as adults we are and we should be allowed to decide which risks we are willing to take. As for you comment about accidents costing tax payers, i ask this, if actions and costs are the factor why is it that sugars carbs fast and fatty foods are not equally enforced ? I would challenge that over weight unhealthly people cost tax payers far more yet there are no laws enforced by armed units enforcing healthly lifestyles.

i was driving down the freeway in 2005 at 4:30 am in the dark and a dairy left a gate open lettting 30 dairy cows out in the freeway blocking it off completely.i plowed into them at 70 miles per hour and received nary a scratch because i was wearing a seat belt as i came to a sudden stop totaling my full sized truck plowing into a 1500 lb cow.seat belts are ALL THAT AND A BAG OF CHIPS

See i was in wreck and the engine ended up in the drivers seat, luckly for me i was not wearing a seat belt , ejected at over 200 kph and only had a small amount of road rash and a torn shirt, so . Yet the responders told me i was lucky as that engine would have at least left me in a chair for the rest of my life if not dead. So again i ask what right does the goverment have to force us to replace one risk with another ? As grown adults we should have the right to decide which risks we are willing to accept and which ones we arent . There is not a case for someone to argue that the lack of wearing a seatbelt places others in any greater risk. So as a adult your call as to wearing a seat belt or not has zero effect on othets as to risk. It is simply a tool to subvent our rights , just one more reason to stop amd question. Love living in such a free country

You sir are have a similar intelligence to a single celled organism. Seat belts prevent more injury and death than they cause. Don’t say dumb things to start arguments. There definitely are rare instances where seat belts cause damage, some of them can be helped by carrying a knife in your pocket to cut your own or someone else’s seat belt in the event of an emergency.

Couldn’t have said it better myself. We both know the government doesn’t give a rip about our safety. Look at all the dangerous products they approve to be sold to us. The ONLY reason for this law is because of the powerful and greedy insurance lobby.

Not disagreeing that seatbelts could kill you but they can prevent you from being ejected through the windshield due to the physics of stopping unexpecteldy (as in a crash) when traveling at high speeds. I guess if you’re the antiChrist shit like that is irrelevant since you can’t die.

Then let them deal with the consequences of uninformed decisions. Your example doesn’t even relate because not wearing a seatbelt is compromising one’s own well being while your driving eyes closed endangers innocent others.

Not trying to stir the pot but I see the Antchrist’s point. I know three people who are alive today because they were not wearing seat belts, all separate incidents. Statistically wearing a seat belt is a great idea, but what people don’t realize is the illusion of safety completely fades away when a accident happens on the freeway at 70 mph.

Yeah growing up a kid in my class was in an accident with his family and he was in the backseat with his 2 brothers. He had no seatbelt on and his bro’s did, he survived but both brothers died of internal bleeding injuries.
And even if you are wearing a seatbelt, dont ride in the passenger seat with your feet up on the dash!!!

Um, the “I 40 challenge” (in California) hasn’t seen a single past fatality… I think that’s just been jinxed. Btw, have there been any double fatals? And considering the section in California is only 100 and something miles, no fatalities isn’t too impressive

Blown away at the number of people who want the government in their lives making choices for them and taking away their freedom. If someone wants to make a personal choice that does not infringe upon another’s rights then they should be allowed to do matter what the consequence it has on oneself.

That’s a strong point I hadn’t initially considered. Not only is there a huge lack of accountability in society I think there are also a huge number of people that don’t want the responsibility of having to think for themselves. Rather be force fed all the way through life. We are tearing away at the fibers of natural selection with all this government manipulation and I am sure our species will pay for it in the long run, if not already in the short term.

A seat belt may not only save your life, But it keeps you secure in front of the vehicles controls. Better control. Alot of older people do not have the strength to keep hold of the wheel in a small impact, Or large bump in the road.

Thats a touchy subject on this site! Do not say people are too old to drive most people on here are elderly and they do not like being called elderly. Yes I actually agree with you for once, Digital hi-five. I think once you hit 70 or so its time to turn in DL.